tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post5626996394957863406..comments2016-12-08T18:43:57.744-05:00Comments on Mayerson on Animation: Complex CharactersMark Mayersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00065971589878678848noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-6651041864511051052010-07-08T20:37:52.858-04:002010-07-08T20:37:52.858-04:00[continued]
Whenever I hear &quot;story story sto...[continued]<br /><br />Whenever I hear &quot;story story story,&quot; I think of bad dialogue, and &quot;pathos.&quot; I&#39;m turned off completely. Of course we can&#39;t be as experimental in animation as someone like Wong Kar-Wai is in live-action, as he searches for his frame and his emotional story. Animation has its own set of rules, and it is much more controlled, but! animation is crafted always, and it can do so many things that live-action cannot do. It just needs to learn how to tell a story properly, and then it will be an unbeatable film form.<br /><br />OR it could just go back to making CARTOONS. I wouldn&#39;t mind that one bit!<br /><br />(as an additional note-- rant: Another thing feature animation is guilty of doing is using UNNECESSARY DIALOGUE. It is either used as a handicap of exposition, or it&#39;s used ignorantly and crushes genuine moments which are already better expressed by mise-en-scene, music, and the challenges in characters&#39; relationships. Your comment about ambiguity reminded me of this.)<br /><br />(PS sorry if this is a jumbled comment -- this is the first time I&#39;ve put these thoughts to words).Mitch Khttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11645009912553755049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-85889027484541683292010-07-08T20:37:31.609-04:002010-07-08T20:37:31.609-04:00Yes Mark, you are right!
The style of storytelli...Yes Mark, you are right!<br /><br />The style of storytelling in feature animation is completely outdated, and completely flat.<br /><br />Early Disney features used a very linear method of storytelling, which seems to me to be a simplified version of the Hollywood style of storytelling at the time. Of course Disney did this because they had to coordinate many other things in addition to story while building this art form of Feature Animation.<br /><br />Live action films, although good then, have since then grown in every direction possible, and SO HAS THE AUDIENCE. (good) Films now are complex in emotion and relationships, creating &quot;plots&quot; or &quot;stories&quot; that are woven deeply and displayed intelligently -- and the audience understands it!<br /><br />Feature Animation, on the other hand, is plot A to B (like you said). It has no character texture, no story texture, no relationship textures, and certainly no emotional texture! Nothing is woven! The layers of the story are thin and close to the surface. The characters follow their checklist, and there&#39;s always those extremely evident (and uncomfortably false) &quot;pathos&quot; scenes. Live-action doesn&#39;t have pathos scenes -- they instead BUILD emotion, piling it on top of itself and the situations the characters face and create.<br /><br />Live-action brings these textured emotions to a boiling point, and then sets them off! leaving the characters to BREAK their own character, re-evaluate themselves, sacrifice something (you said it!), and then grow as a result. You get none of this in most feature animation, and even the best stuff still doesn&#39;t stack up to live-action. Feature animation is flat, it&#39;s not engaging. It insults the intelligence, the filmic intelligence, and emotional intelligence of the audience by being so blatant.Mitch Khttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11645009912553755049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-69321892326627752632010-07-08T20:36:21.320-04:002010-07-08T20:36:21.320-04:00Yes Mark, you are right!
The style of storytelli...Yes Mark, you are right!<br /><br />The style of storytelling in feature animation is completely outdated, and completely flat.<br /><br />Early Disney features used a very linear method of storytelling, which seems to me to be a simplified version of the Hollywood style of storytelling at the time. Of course Disney did this because they had to coordinate many other things in addition to story while building this art form of Feature Animation.<br /><br />Live action films, although good then, have since then grown in every direction possible, and SO HAS THE AUDIENCE. (good) Films now are complex in emotion and relationships, creating &quot;plots&quot; or &quot;stories&quot; that are woven deeply and displayed intelligently -- and the audience understands it!<br /><br />Feature Animation, on the other hand, is plot A to B (like you said). It has no character texture, no story texture, no relationship textures, and certainly no emotional texture! Nothing is woven! The layers of the story are thin and close to the surface. The characters follow their checklist, and there&#39;s always those extremely evident (and uncomfortably false) &quot;pathos&quot; scenes. Live-action doesn&#39;t have pathos scenes -- they instead BUILD emotion, piling it on top of itself and the situations the characters face and create.<br /><br />Live-action brings these textured emotions to a boiling point, and then sets them off! leaving the characters to BREAK their own character, re-evaluate themselves, sacrifice something (you said it!), and then grow as a result. You get none of this in most feature animation, and even the best stuff still doesn&#39;t stack up to live-action. Feature animation is flat, it&#39;s not engaging. It insults the intelligence, the filmic intelligence, and emotional intelligence of the audience by being so blatant.<br /><br />Whenever I hear &quot;story story story,&quot; I think of bad dialogue, and &quot;pathos.&quot; I&#39;m turned off completely. Of course we can&#39;t be as experimental in animation as someone like Wong Kar-Wai is in live-action, as he searches for his frame and his emotional story. Animation has its own set of rules, and it is much more controlled, but! animation is crafted always, and it can do so many things that live-action cannot do. It just needs to learn how to tell a story properly, and then it will be an unbeatable film form.<br /><br />OR it could just go back to making CARTOONS. I wouldn&#39;t mind that one bit!<br /><br />(as an additional note-- rant: Another thing feature animation is guilty of doing is using UNNECESSARY DIALOGUE. It is either used as a handicap of exposition, or it&#39;s used ignorantly and crushes genuine moments which are already better expressed by mise-en-scene, music, and the challenges in characters&#39; relationships. Your comment about ambiguity reminded me of this.)<br /><br />(PS sorry if this is a jumbled comment -- this is the first time I&#39;ve put these thoughts to words).Mitch Khttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11645009912553755049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-91088301275333564712010-07-06T20:01:33.904-04:002010-07-06T20:01:33.904-04:00Peter, I agree that Grumpy is &quot;one of the mor...Peter, I agree that Grumpy is &quot;one of the more complex and interesting characters in Disney history.&quot; I disagree with your interpretation of the washing scene, though.<br /><br />Patrick, I&#39;ll give you Jessie for Toy Story 2, but in TS3, ultimately it&#39;s Andy&#39;s decision as to what happens to Woody, not Woody&#39;s. The choice that Woody has to make is to separate himself from the other toys because it&#39;s Andy&#39;s wish.<br /><br />John, there&#39;s no question that Tytla&#39;s animation of Grumpy is a milestone. No criticism was aimed at the animator, but as to how the character was conceived. It&#39;s our loss that Tytla didn&#39;t get more complex characters to animate. I feel certain he was capable of it.Mark Mayersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00065971589878678848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-46723301572546032602010-07-04T23:27:30.342-04:002010-07-04T23:27:30.342-04:00I guess it all comes down to how you cut your slic...I guess it all comes down to how you cut your slice of analytical cake for each character. People obviously make different connections and interoperate things differently. <br /><br />However, your key points about what makes a character complex and the difference between character and personality are put forward very well. Thank you for taking the time to do so.Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-28249456663188582502010-07-04T09:09:35.884-04:002010-07-04T09:09:35.884-04:00Mark, I agree with Mr. Emslie&#39;s comments regar...Mark, I agree with Mr. Emslie&#39;s comments regarding Grumpy. I can only add that it took the gigantic talent of Bill Tytla to be able to provide that performance through his animation and guidance of the other animators on his team (including Frank Thomas, who I believe animated Grumpy&#39;s emotional breakdown at Snow White&#39;s casket).John Celestrihttp://www.avengingapes.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-34705558875777012602010-07-04T02:11:38.513-04:002010-07-04T02:11:38.513-04:00Great stuff! However, I do think you&#39;re being...Great stuff! However, I do think you&#39;re being a little unfair in your analysis of Toy Story 2 &amp; 3.<br /><br />In TS 2, I don&#39;t think it is a matter of Jessie having to give up mistrust. Because her heart was so broken by Emily, she&#39;s had to move on and construct barriers around her heart that keep her emotionally safe. That safety is what she gives up, which I see as a huge loss. Of course, it works out for her, but only for a little while. For both her and Woody, the museum in Japan represents a lifetime of being loved without having to love back, and therefore being guarded from the pain of loss.<br /><br />For TS 3, I don&#39;t think it&#39;s supposed to be about Andy&#39;s growth, as he is barely in the film. Ultimately, what I think Woody has to do is give up Andy, which I see as a huge loss for him.Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03629385250365261647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-32342595781596213792010-07-03T19:50:21.388-04:002010-07-03T19:50:21.388-04:00+1
Bookmarked for future reference. You did a gre...+1<br /><br />Bookmarked for future reference. You did a great job of boiling it down and this will be on my mind for anything I do in the future. Excellent stuff.Keith Langohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12496328772372705317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-14347553889539919122010-07-03T16:25:47.700-04:002010-07-03T16:25:47.700-04:00Mark, Although I agree with much of what you say g...Mark, Although I agree with much of what you say generally in regard to character in animated films, I am going to give you some argument on Grumpy. I think you&#39;ve dismissed his character as being too simplistic when I find him one of the more complex and interesting characters in Disney history. Here&#39;s why.<br /><br />Most people who watch <b>Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs</b> will likely agree that Grumpy&#39;s changing feelings first become apparent in the scene when the Dwarfs are all heading off to work and leaving Snow White by herself at the cottage. Grumpy&#39;s warning to her not to let any strangers in, followed by his mock struggle while she kisses his head, culminating in his marching away and crumbling softheartedly once he thinks he&#39;s out of her view - this is where most viewers think that the evidence of Grumpy&#39;s love for her first arises. But what if I were to tell you that Grumpy is actually smitten with Snow White from the first moment he lays eyes on her ? <br /><br />Think about the scene at the wash tub where all the Dwarfs except for Grumpy follow Doc&#39;s instructions on washing themselves clean to please the princess. If Grumpy were truly averse to the idea and determined to show up just as filthy for dinner, why does he stick around? I believe that only superficially does he remain on the scene to taunt and ridicule the other Dwarfs. Yes, he gets some pleasure out of heckling them, but when he finally says &quot;I&#39;d like to see anybody make me wash, if I didn&#39;t wanna!&quot;, he&#39;s really issuing them a challenge that he hopes they&#39;ll take him up on.<br /><br />Grumpy knows exactly what he&#39;s doing when he lets the others surround him, ambush him, and drag him off kicking and screaming to the wash tub to give him a proper scrub. He wanted this all along, as it allows him to maintain his reputation as a stubborn old goat who marches to the beat of his own drum, while also ending up looking his best for Snow White. Of course later in the film it&#39;s Grumpy who really takes charge instead of the supposed leader, Doc, rallying the Dwarfs on the rescue mission to save Snow White from the witch. This, plus Grumpy&#39;s emotional breakdown at Snow White&#39;s casket seemingly being the most poignant scene of all, really makes me believe that Grumpy was in love with her all along, making the character for me, as complex a character as I&#39;ve ever witnessed in animation. If subtext is what helps to show real character as opposed to just superficial personality traits, then I&#39;d argue that Grumpy is animation&#39;s answer to the poignancy and pathos of Chaplin&#39;s little tramp or Laughton&#39;s Quasimodo.Pete Emsliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01451607722482352366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-9030061568125678272010-07-03T16:00:08.964-04:002010-07-03T16:00:08.964-04:00Brilliant article. I will have to watch those film...Brilliant article. I will have to watch those films you cited. Why aren&#39;t you giving lectures at Disney, Pixar, and the other animated studios? Obviously they could use your insight. I hope I can help improve this. I want to make those kind of films you cited.Eric Noblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05872046921674512158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-45091971293711163662010-07-03T14:42:45.220-04:002010-07-03T14:42:45.220-04:00It seems both of your examples tap into the exact ...It seems both of your examples tap into the exact same concept I&#39;ve been studying in my own articles (<a href="http://onanimation.com/?p=273" rel="nofollow">1</a>, <a href="http://onanimation.com/?p=805" rel="nofollow">2</a>, <a href="http://onanimation.com/?p=952" rel="nofollow">3</a>, <a href="http://onanimation.com/?p=2491" rel="nofollow">4</a>). I&#39;ve been studying villains, and I keep coming back to the unknown being the most interesting character aspect, that is, when you have no idea what the villain will do next, it makes for a better and more interesting villain. This may seem obvious, but I can see based on your examples that it can be used for every character to some degree to further engage an audience in a story.Daniel Caylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09379387828450465575noreply@blogger.com